Hunker Down, America: Terror War Will Last for Decades

The Orlando Sentinel ^ | January 26, 2004 | John C. Bersia

[quidnunc]

'I don't care if you call it World War III, World War IV or whatever. It's scary."

That was how one of my students described the current wave of terrorism, which began about a generation ago and really cranked up after the Cold War's end. President Bush repeatedly referred to the conflict in his recent State of the Union address, drawing special attention to the hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers deployed worldwide to counter the challenge.

Naysayers, who are predisposed toward disregarding what the president asserts on most any topic, believe that he exaggerates the danger. They see other motives in his keeping the nation fearful, on guard and distracted by global terrorism, such as a free hand for Bush to pursue his broader political agenda.

The critics have a point, but Americans should not allow such perceptions to keep them from viewing the terrorist threat with clear eyes. Simply put, the president has not overstated the zeal, reach, power and relentlessness of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Americans who doubt the prevalence and malevolent intentions of those groups do so at their own peril — and at the risk of psychological trauma, should ignorance leave them as unprepared for future terrorist attacks as they were on Sept. 11.

Instead, Americans had better steady themselves for the long haul in this struggle. The war against terrorism will continue through post-Bush presidencies, both Republican and Democrat, for decades to come.

-snip-

[Henrietta]

Eternal war for eternal peace...Isn't that in Orwell's "1984"?

[JohnGalt]

Yes, it is.

But to trace out the history of the whole period, to say who was fighting whom at any given moment, would have been utterly impossible, since no written record, and no spoken word, ever made mention of any other alignment than the existing one. At this moment, for example, in 1984 (if it was 1984), Oceania was at war with Eurasia and in alliance with Eastasia. In no public or private utterance was it ever admitted that the three powers had at any time been grouped along different lines. Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.

[templar]

The war on terrorism, the forever war, has some distinct political advantages.

[A Navy Vet]

The war on terrorism will end with the next large scale attack or small homicide bombings on our shores.

The American psyche has always been, "live and let live", unless our own interests are threatened. The Islamists would be well advised to understand that aspect of our particular culture. The first time a homicide bomb goes off in one of our malls or restaurants or elsewhere, it will be the end of militant Islam. Mark these words carefully.

[Shermy]

Eternal war for eternal peace...Isn't that in Orwell's "1984"?

It's Wahhabism too. Permanent jihad, like permanent struggle, or permanent revolutuion. A parallel is to Mao's or Trotsky's permanent revolution...a machine defining "peace" as victory over the West, not cessation of violence. Wahhabism defines peace not as an absence of violence, but an absence of the "House of War", hence the reason for war.

But it's not advantageous to call the WOT the WOW.

[Shermy]

BTW, Ibn Abdul Wahhab wasn't the first to advocate permanent jihad, but he's the figure most associated with it, and extended it to beyond infidels to "Modernizers" and Shiites.

[urtax$@work]

We have been there & done that. Jap soldiers were being killed until the 1970s if i remember correctly. Last combat
engagement between US and Jap forces was (i think) in the mid 1950s somewhere near Burma. Will have to look up those facts again to be sure. Now you know the basis of my tagline.

[js1138]

Now just as soon as you have been jailed or liquidated for expressing dissenting opinion, we can continue with the parallels to 1984.

[swarthyguy]

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan3_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3

Watch the Sept11 Hearings.

[RAY]

We need to go after terrorism at the source. This means going after and destruction of the religious leader and others that preach and teach the destruction of the USA. We are not doing this yet, and I think your point is good that another significant terrorist event is all we need to be pushed to go to the source.

The giant has been aroused, but is not yet fully awake.

[Spok]

"Naysayers, who are predisposed toward disregarding what the president asserts on most any topic, believe that he exaggerates the danger."

Then how do they explain 9/11?

[freeeee]

You've never heard of incrementalism?

[steve8714]

Not as long as there are lawyers and judges, to sue the gov for protecting us. This may however deteriorate into mob violence etc.

[mrsmith]

Very soon the military war on terror will be over. The terrorist organizations' military infrastructure will be destroyed and they will be sundered from their State supporters.

Terrorism will be a criminal matter.

[urtax$@work]

Corrigidor Update: In mid-1946 the US Army Graves Registration Unit identifying and sorting out the remnants of the "Rock Force Assault" battle re-taking the 2000 acre fortress island - received the surrender of about 20 Jap soldiers who had previously been hidden since the battle of Corrigidor of February 1945.

[A Navy Vet]

I disagree somewhat. Bush & Co. have been very successful in cutting off the financial resources of the enemy. But if you mean a frontal assault on the militant Islamists clergy, yes, it will take another Homeland assault to motivate the populace, and thereby our fedgov.

BTW, I understand Bush's statements regarding Islam. The leader of the free world can hardly comdemn 1/6th of the planet without inflaming Islam followers more, knowing their propensity to be easily aggitated. Discretion is a virtue.

[uncbob]

And the outcome is not assured as a vitory by any means

The more technologically advanced a society the more easily it is affected by individual acts against its ifrastructure

[uncbob]

We are not doing this yet, and I think your point is good that another significant terrorist event is all we need to be pushed to go to the source.

And a great leader would be able to rally the Americans WITHOUT that happening but by pointing out its distinct possiblilty if the war is not conducted properly

And that is just what DID NOT occur in 93 with the first WTC. The bomb didn't work correctly or that would have been a bigger disaster than 9/11

A great leader would have been able to point that out and take action
BUT WE HAD BUBBA

[Henrietta]

"Now just as soon as you have been jailed or liquidated for expressing dissenting opinion, we can continue with the parallels to 1984."

Yeah, isn't that what that new campaign finance reform bill is all about? If you say anything that might promote a particular candidate 60 days before an election, we throw your butt in jail!

And let's not forget the "sneak and peek" provisions of the Patriot Act, and Total Information Awareness...Yes, parallels to 1984 aren't really accurate, are they? /sarcasm